Taufiqurrahman Taufiqurrahman

Whether Edmund Husserl is a realist or idealist or metaphysically neutral is still often debated among his commentators. Instead of making an over-generalized claim about Husserl’s thought, this study only focuses on intentionality theory to know toward which Husserl is metaphysically committed in that theory. This study, therefore, aims to metaphysically reconstruct Husserl’s theory of intentionality and then prove that the theory is realist, not idealist nor metaphysically neutral. By using the textual analysis method, this study finds four important points in Husserl’s works regarding intentionality theory. Firstly, in the Husserlian framework of intentionality, consciousness always intends its objects through the mediation of a certain meaning. Secondly, objects toward which consciousness is directed are transcendent and independent from consciousness. Thirdly, a single object can be intended by consciousness through different meanings according to the perspective that determines the intention. Therefore, fourthly, Husserl’s theory of intentionality can be categorized as one version of perspectival realism.

Artikel ini bertujuan untuk merekonstruksi pemikiran Martin Heidegger tentang bahasa dalam bingkai ontologi fundamental. Ontologi fundamental adalah kritik Martin Heidegger terhadap mainstream metafisika Barat yang cenderung onto-teo logis dan bercorak subjektif. Menyangkal kecenderungan onto-teo-logis dan meminggirkan subjektivisme dari metafisika, ontologi fundamental ini akhirnya ditandai oleh keduniawian (worldliness/Weltlichkeit) dan pasivitas aktif manusia. Metafisika-puitika sebagai kelanjutan proyek ontologi fundamental Martin Heidegger dalam konteks bahasa juga dicirikan oleh keduniawian dan pasivitas aktif manusia. Ciri-ciri tersebut terwujud dalam: pertama, keterkaitan bahasa—yang pada hakikatnya puitis—dengan kebermukiman manusia di bumi; dan kedua, pemahaman manusia terhadap makna Ada yang dimediasi oleh bahasa (puisi) dimungkinkan jika dan hanya jika manusia pasif sekaligus aktif.

Some academics and state officials in Indonesia argue for the adoption of Pancasila as a scientific paradigm for the country's scientific endeavours. They believe that using Pancasila as a foundation could give Indonesian science a distinct and unique character. However, this article seeks to reevaluate the feasibility of Pancasila as a scientific paradigm. By reviewing the literature on Pancasila and the philosophy of science, it arrives at the conclusion that Pancasila cannot serve as a scientific paradigm, either in a narrow or comprehensive sense. Two primary reasons support this conclusion. Firstly, Pancasila lacks the necessary characteristics of a well-established scientific achievement. As a result, it cannot function as a scientific paradigm in the narrow sense defined by Kuhn. Secondly, Pancasila carries theological baggage that surpasses science’s capacity to accommodate it. This aspect prevents Pancasila from becoming a comprehensive scientific paradigm. Consequently, I propose that Pancasila is more suitable as an axiological basis for science, rather than a scientific paradigm. Unlike a scientific paradigm, this axiological foundation does not fall within the epistemic scope of science.